CSotD: Perhaps the end of the beginning
Skip to comments
Steve Sack provides the most humorous-yet-accurate assessment of the Comey firing.
To begin with, the villain-in-black is a lovely symbol, and then the self-satisfied villain, having local law enforcement in his pocket, sitting on the board sidewalk tilted back in his chair is a vital part of so many Westerns that it makes no demands on the viewer for interpretation, though the Wanted poster is a nice touch.
And it's the part of the movie where you know what you hope will happen, but it hasn't happened yet and you don't know how it's going to.
This matters because a lot of cartoonists and commentators are comparing the firing of Comey to Nixon's sacking of Archibald Cox back in 1973, and, while there is an obvious parallel — trying to get rid of someone who has the power to bring you down — that's about where it ends.
To start with, Cox was the special investigator, and so there could be no question about Nixon's motivation, particularly since (second major difference) most of the evidence by then was out on the table. We knew what had happened in exquisite detail, but it was still a matter of legal proof.
John Dean's testimony, and that of other involved witnesses, remained only their own words. The tapes were the proof, and Cox was after the tapes.
We're nowhere near that point with the Russia investigation.
Not even close.
Though, as Jim Morin suggests, we're seemingly getting close to something.
That is, the firing is an indication that there may be more than a series of meetings and lunches and so forth. Those encounters may not pass the smell test, but they aren't proof of anything.
You need a blue dress even to present a foolish, partisan case for impeachment, and we don't have that blue dress, much less proof of anything that rises to the level of serious malfeasance.
But if Trump felt he had to shoot the dog, ol' Bowser must have been getting close to something.
Speaking of the smell test, Jack Ohman presents the justification for the firing, and leaves it for the reader to decide if it makes sense. Obviously, the bomb is metaphorical but everything else is pretty much as it went.
News reports on TV have done even more to bring the alleged reason into question, airing clips of Trump praising Comey for the very thing he now has fired him for.
Nixon never tried to come up with reasons for much of anything: He simply denied that they had occurred or, at best, that he had any knowledge of them. By the time he resigned, he had thrown multiple staff members under the bus, but he never insulted our intelligence beyond pretending that they had done all those things without him knowing it.
Hence Howard Baker's famous question, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?"
Historic note: The "I am not a crook" remark came after the firing of Archibald Cox.
Further historic note: Two attorneys general resigned rather than participate in the firing. Haven't seen that, this time around.
In fact, Bruce Plante makes the point that the man who promised to "drain the swamp" is a large part of the problem and no part at all of the solution.
And, while David Fitzsimmons suggests Comey's firing might be a threat to anyone else who might be tempted to bring evidence forward …
… David Rowe notes that Comey is only the latest victim of the ongoing purge.
But, if this isn't the Cox firing, it's something, and Antonio Rodriguez suggests that the move will not leave Trump unscathed. (Love the tie, BTW).
The whole thing reminds me of Winston Churchill's speech following the British victory at al Alamein, when he cautioned
"Now this is not the end.
It is not even the beginning of the end.
But it is, perhaps,
the end of the beginning."
Comments
Comments are closed.